The philosophies of men mingled with the philosophies of women.

The LDS Dating Crises (part 2)

Since I last posted on the The LDS Dating Crises it has come to my attention that the temple sealing polices/doctrine/cultural baggage (you pick one) can contribute to the difficulty of women finding a husband. This is especially true for widowed women who were sealed to their dead husband. Like it or not, they are now “Damaged Goods” to the single never married or divorced man in the church. He wants a “Forever Family” like everybody else at church, and to marry an already sealed woman means he can never be sealed to her, and never have eternal offspring. This is not the case for widowers or divorced men. They can be sealed to as many women as they want (although we stopped practicing polygamy in 1890…..).

This is a frequent topic on Facebook groups for LDS widows, and its ramification are discussed endlessly. It leads to a ranking of desirability of single LDS women, where a divorced woman is more desirable than a widowed woman, despite the stigma the divorce might bring with it. (note: a divorced woman can get their temple sealing cancelled, thus freeing them up for a new sealing. A divorced man need not get his previous sealing canceled, but for parity’s sake he needs to get a sealing clearance, which is the exact same paperwork that the woman fills out. The only difference is a little check box at the top, which is marked either “clearance” or “cancellation”) (1)

So the Sealed widower would be the perfect match for the widow, and with death rates being very similar, they should just match up with each other, and problem solved! Well, turns out those middle aged widowers are at the very top of the desirability scale for single LDS women; they don’t have the stigma of divorce, and there is no wondering why they are 38 and never married. So these men get to be picky, and usually marry somebody much younger than they are.

So what is the solution to this mess that the vestiges of polygamy have left on Temple sealing rules? They could change the rules to true “polygamy” type rules, and not the “polygyny” rules that are enforced today (2). This would allow a woman, like a man, to be sealed to a dead spouse and also a living one. In fact a deceased woman that was married to multiple men in her life time can be sealed to all of them vicariously, with the explanation that it will “all get figured out in the end” and she can then choose who she will be with. Why not extend this courtesy to living women as well?

(1) This was not always the case. Some 25 years ago, the men needed no “clearance” to get sealed to another woman, they just did it.

(2) Polygamy means one man or woman married to multiple other spouses. Polygyny means a man having more than one wife at a time.

35 thoughts on “The LDS Dating Crises (part 2)”

A widowed woman can get her sealing cancelled to her deceased husband. However, if she has children with her first husband, she is essentially taking those children away from him in the eternities and giving them to her second husband. It’s an unbelievably painful situation to be in. My sister is in this situation (in her 20s) and even when she found someone to date, his family objected to her on every level possible and the pressure to cancel her first sealing was crazy. But cancelling that first sealing then kicks her first husband out of the CK and leaves him without his kids.

I know that in life, the church says polygyny is the rule, but there could be polyandry (Woman with multiple husbands) too. It is important to remember that in the late 1960s, Howard W. Hunter proposed that women be sealed to all husbands they lived with in this life, because it is impossible for people 100 years later to know which husband she desired to be sealed with in eternity. The idea is that she will get to pick the husband. See my post: https://mormonheretic.org/2011/07/24/multiple-sealings-for-women/

Suffice it to say that after a woman is dead, she will be sealed to ALL her husbands, so in a sense polyandry. Now, it is my personal opinion that we don’t understand this idea of sealing very well, and I think it creates some problems. (1) If sealings are really binding in heaven, then we have essentially sealed polyandry, but of course this can only be done after the woman is dead. We don’t believe in polyandry for the living. So the church can’t have it both ways. The church wants to say that the woman gets to choose in the next life, but that would render the other sealings NOT BINDING in heaven. If we have the sealing power, why are we binding women to multiple men when that binding may or may not be binding? Really it’s a silly point of theology. Either you are bound, or you are not. If we believe sealings are binding, then we are performing polyandrous sealings, and in some cases omnigamous if a woman has 2 husbands, and the man was 2 wives. All 4 will be sealed (although not same sex, obviously.) It just illustrates to me that our theology has a major hole and we don’t know what to do. We make up an answer that the woman can choose in the next life, but that effectively undermines the sealing ordinance in the first place. If we don’t know who she wants in the next life, why are we sealing her to her (possibly abusive) first husband when she wants to live eternally with the second husband? We don’t know what we’re doing, and we’re trying to cover all the bases, but creating theological holes in the argument when we do this.

Yes, God may be the ultimate judge, but this is a hot mess, and the current theological reasoning has some serious logic errors.

This post points out the difficulty church members encounter because of revealed doctrine . It really doesn’t matter the kind of crisis we face, the solution is nearly always the same. Those who live their lives faithfully will find a way to manage the various crisis mortality brings their way. It doesn’t matter if it’s pulling a hand-cart across the plains, cancer, same-sex-attraction, being poor, disabled, or a thousand other afflictions that befall God’s sons and daughters in a fallen world, God will support us in our trials an afflictions. The promise to the faithful is that Heavenly Father “shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain” and that the faithful “shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God.”

The real message of this post is that those who suffer those things outlined in this post will one day thank God because it will bring them, if faithful, the gift of eternal life.

@jared I once said something similar to a loved one, something along the lines of “these trials are being given to you so you can learn something, heavenly father will help you”, etc. Etc. Etc. I regretted it as soon as I saw their reaction. What they thought I was saying was that their problems we’re their own fault, that if they had been a better person then God would not have allowed these things to happen to them.

I no longer try to make sense of trials in this way. Even if you believe what you say is true, it is small comfort to people who are hurting now.

If the problems mentioned in the OP are due to revealed doctrine, as you suggest, I propose the solution is to get a new policy, possibly based on better revealed doctrine, that makes more sense, rather than to tell people to just deal with it.

I think the best way to approach those who are experiencing a crisis is to just love them. When the time is appropriate, if they really believe in God’s word, then my experience has been it can turn into a faith filled discussion providing comfort. The key is, do they believe in the word of God, if they do, they will be lifted by the message of the scriptures, if not, then find another way to provide comfort.

I will also add that this theology has implications in this life. I know a widow who very much felt she was “damaged goods” because the husband she was sealed to in life died. Her second marriage, she married a non-member because “it didn’t matter” because she couldn’t get sealed again. So saying that God will figure it out completely ignores real-world implications.

So Jared, your conclusion that “The real message of this post is that those who suffer those things outlined in this post will one day thank God because it will bring them, if faithful, the gift of eternal life” is not helpful to a widow I know. This policy can bring despair to some. It’s not a good policy, and I’ve never had anyone defend it theologically. The best thing a person can do is give a trite “I don’t know. Sucks to be you, but God will fix it.” That’s a very unsatisfying answer. THe woman I mentioned went to a GA and he offered no help, which tells me that there really is no theological justification. She married the non-LDS dude after meeting with the GA, so his advice was pretty poorly received.

Jared, based on your name, I assume you have never been a young LDS widow. I have. My lived experience trumps your philosophical musings.

Losing one’s spouse thrusts one into the refiner’s fire. There is no good reason to heap extra trials upon that suffering person simply because she is female. With every fiber of my being, I reject the notion that God tough loves his daughters (while extending compassion to his sons suffering the loss of a spouse) because that is what is best for them. The trial of being sealed to only one of the men I have married, loved, and spent my life with has been heartbreaking and painful and unnecessary. Brother, instead of telling me I should rejoice in this, try mourning with me for a moment.

When are we as a people really (I mean REALLY) going to believe that God sees each daughter as a beloved child, and not just as a piece of property to be “received” by one of his beloved children?

Jared: You said “if they really believe in God’s word, then my experience has been it can turn into a faith filled discussion providing comfort.” I’ve heard this sentiment from you in many different discussions, but the problem is that it means that if people don’t find something comforting, they are faithless (or don’t believe in God’s word). It’s needlessly antagonistic to think this way about other people. Instead, why not bear in mind that the struggles others have are personal and their own, and maybe you aren’t in a position to truly understand them. I agree that loving others is the most important thing, but this relentless litmus test of the other person’s faithfulness according to what you find comforting is bound to create barriers rather than build bridges.

Anon: “When are we as a people really (I mean REALLY) going to believe that God sees each daughter as a beloved child, and not just as a piece of property to be “received” by one of his beloved children?” So far, never.

This is what happens when Mankind, and I do mean the Males make up the rules. Rules are never meant to benifit women. Women are treated as second class citizens in every religion.
Women are complicit in keeping these rules against their own sex. Women won’t stand up for each other. But, men support men.

Angela hit the nail on the head. If they are not comforted, then then must be faithless. That’s a judgment that doesn’t belong to you, and is not comforting. Your comments on this post are judgmental, not comfort. Just sayin.

I know you didn’t intend it that way, and I believe your intentions are good, but this is an example of what NOT to say. As Brigham Young said, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

“It doesn’t matter if it’s pulling a hand-cart across the plains, cancer, same-sex-attraction, being poor, disabled, or a thousand other afflictions that befall God’s sons and daughters in a fallen world, God will support us in our trials an afflictions.”

The big difference in all the cases you’ve cited is that having cancer comes for a period in or at the end of someone’s life. Pulling a handcart is a finite activity that might take some months and is then over. Even being poor or disabled, one might hope for better days or means to alleviate the burden. Being gay is an involuntary life-long attribute without hope of change. It shouldn’t,/I> and needn’t be a sentence to loneliness, judgment and rejection.

Angela said, “the problem is that it means that if people don’t find something comforting, they are faithless (or don’t believe in God’s word). MH said, ” If they are not comforted, then then must be faithless.”

I comment from the perspective of faith. The scriptures make it clear that without faith God can’t work with individuals or nations of individuals (Ether 12:12). My approach to those who don’t have faith is to just love them and help any way that I can. I have a lot of experience helping those who lack faith.

To those who have some degree of faith I try to build on it. My experience has taught me that can be very productive, but not always. I try to comment from the perspective of faith because it has worked so well in my life.

When I say comforted, I mean by the Spirit. In order to be comforted by the Spirit faith needs to be present. If faith isn’t present they won’t be comforted by the Spirit of the Lord.

When I start digging into details like this, my belief in the doctrine of sealing starts plummeting. And when one starts digging in this area, you have to also explore polygamy . And once I did that it actually made it easy to let it all go as someone’s attempt at making something that felt good in times of pain (death and separation). To me it is much simpler to think that God wants me to be happy in this life and afterwards and have faith that my heavenly parents will do good by me as I try to be good.

Jared, the reason I find your comments off putting I can best illustrate with this example:

Imagine that you come across a starving child, and you have a pantry full of food at home. Would you pat its head and say, “Wow! Look at you! This must be some trial you’re experiencing. Well, as long as you remain faithful, in a day or two, after you’ve starved to death, you can thank God for giving you this experience that sent you right into His loving arms. Bye, now!” Or, would you feed the child?

The thing is, I believe that as disciples of Christ it is our duty to alleviate unnecessary suffering. We would feed the child. The child’s hunger pains do not indicate a lack of faith. Starving does not make the child a better person. Might the Savior comfort the child? Yes, of course he would. But that doesn’t mean that we keep the food away from the child.

Jesus Christ was by my side through the long and excruciating years my husband was ill, He lifted me during the dark, dark days following his death, and He has continued to strengthen me throughout the difficult journey without my husband. Those experiences have made me a stronger and more compassionate human being. I have personal experience with God sanctifying my trials. However, that sanctification process is intensely personal and intimate. Having a stranger tritely reduce my pain to a question of faith is unhelpful.

As far as the policy that denies living women the blessings that are extended to all men and dead women…well, that’s like watching a child starve when you have a pantry full of food.

I’m puzzled by the reaction my comments received. Apparently, I haven’t done a very good job expressing my thoughts. How Anon takes what I wrote and ends up thinking I wouldn’t help a starving child is bewildering. I would help without hesitation! I’ve done the equivalent all my life.

My wife and I served a three years mission a few years serving the poor and needy. The people we worked with came from different countries and walks of life. Some of them had been in prison and were trying to reform their lives. We did all we could to help. Those who didn’t have money for food we obtained food orders so they could go to DI. Many of them lacked skills so we helped them find work at DI and then helped them move on to a job else where after a period of time. We’re planning to go on other missions. In my business I have thousands of clients, some them are gay. I treat them like everyone else. Apparently, my clients like doing business with my company or else they would take their business elsewhere.

I’ve visited W&T periodically for many years. I’m interested in understanding how active or formerly active church members deal with the issues of our day. The big issue nowadays is SSA. I listen to church leaders and agree with their positions because I sustain them as apostles and prophets. It appears most who comment and post at W&T oppose church leaders at some level on SSA, as well on many other issues.

I’m an advocate for faith and comment that way. Bishop Bill in this post highlighted the challenges that come with the churches doctrinal position on marriage. I agree with much of what he wrote. My response is that those who suffer because of the churches doctrine on marriage can choose to exercise faith. Should they do so, they will receive the blessings that come from faithfulness. If on the other hand, they don’t exercise faith they can find some other way to manage their lives.

Sherri Dew comes to mind. She, for whatever reason, never married even though she wanted to be a wife and mother. How has she managed her life? She decided long ago to follow Christ. In many of her talks and writings she has testified of the blessings that have come to her because of her decision to exercise faith. She testifies that she has been strengthened and helped by the Spirit of the Lord.

In fact a deceased woman that was married to multiple men in her life time can be sealed to all of them vicariously, with the explanation that it will “all get figured out in the end” and she can then choose who she will be with.

Actually, the handbook doesn’t say anything about an explanation or anything else along the lines of things getting figured out. The handbook does say that deceased persons who’ve had their temple work done for them must accept the ordinances done vicariously on their behalf and keep the associated covenants. There’s nothing in the handbook that qualifies that principle or language that says that concept applies to all vicarious temple ordinances EXCEPT those instances where deceased women have been sealed to more than once husband. If you can find something that contradicts that position on official church website let me know.

Jared, good grief! I was using the example of the starving child as an analogy. I had no intention of implying that you would pass by an actual child who was starving. I assumed that you would, of course, choose to feed the hypothetical child in my analogy. I hoped you (and possibly other readers) would make the connection between intentionally leaving a starving child to suffer unnecessarily (which you would never do) to the sealing policy that leaves an LDS widow to suffer unnecessarily (which it seems you think is what God wants).

I testified that the Lord sustained and continues to sustain me through my trials.

I suppose the point where our thoughts diverge is in the sealing policy itself. I believe that it is a policy (not doctrine) that has changed over time to allow deceased women to be sealed to all of their husbands. I testify that this was a good change that alleviates some of the suffering of LDS widows. It brings me some peace to know that I will one day, after death, be sealed to both men I love. I pray that further changes toward more equitable treatment of widows and widowers will further reduce the suffering of LDS widows IN THIS LIFE. I do not see this as a lack of faith. I see this as having great faith that as we work to see better, though still through a glass, darkly, we will continue to make things better for all of God’s children.

I am also aware that most people in our church have never even thought about this ugly side of current sealing policies. (I know it was something I had never considered until I faced a heart-wrenching decision.). I think it is important to explain how this policy has the potential to hurt people, including those who love and have great faith in God.

If you are wondering why you are getting a negative response, I’d say it is because your word choice and tone come off as condescending. For example…

“I comment from the perspective of faith.”

Which implies the rest of us don’t comment from a perspective of faith (which is so insulting!).

You could rephrase this to state “I comment from the perspective of LDS orthodoxy’ and it no longer comes off as a judgment on the other’s relationship to Jesus. Your writing is filled with these small, back-handed judgments on others that set people up to then feel negatively toward your arguments.

I do appreciate you coming to W&T and trying to understand and interact with others that don’t see things the same way. We all need to do this and I have even been taking specific (and sometimes hard) steps to interact with those that view things differently to both help me and them be more understanding of each other (my next post even talks about this area). I would hope you continue to feel you can come and comment and engage on topics.

I didn’t take it that others were accusing you of not feeding a starving child (kudos for your mission to go help others). But to them they do see some parallels in the analogy.
I will give one bit of advice that might set off less triggers. If you have read much of any marriage improvement books, you will hear about using “I” statements. I think one thing that that can draw a reaction is to say (in so many words), “This IS the way it is” it can feel to some that there is an added “And God and I agree on this.” If it is phrased, “I feel that …” for one is a truth because you are stating how you view the world and not automatically insinuating that someone else’s view of the world is wrong. I hope this doesn’t come off condescending, but I have offered this advice and sometimes have been thanked, but other times told that I am just wrong and using “I” statements don’t make a difference.

I am not saying you always do this, but just as an example. One statement from your first post on this matter was:
“It really doesn’t matter the kind of crisis we face, the solution is nearly always the same. Those who live their lives faithfully will find a way to manage the various crisis mortality brings their way.”
To me I read that as saying, “THIS IS THE WAY IT IS.” Maybe it is too against the Mormon culture to not state things boldly, but to me I react much less if I would see “From my point of view …”. I won’t go into how this seems like a case of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

EDIT: I worked on this comment over my lunch and didn’t refresh my browser and see the comment that is now above mine. But if we both independently came up with the same reply … ?

“I’m interested in understanding how active or formerly active church members deal with the issues of our day.” If you are interested in this, then listen to their experiences without inserting your judgments and assumptions (that you are faithful and anyone for whom something is painful or doesn’t work is not). Try to understand the experiences of those whose life experience differs from your own, and then shut your mouth about why you think they should have the great experience you (without their trials) are having. Shut it. Listen. Don’t explain away their pain in a wave of “faithful” dismissiveness. That’s what love is.

“I listen to church leaders and agree with their positions because I sustain them as apostles and prophets”. Another way to say this is that you’ve outsourced your own moral reasoning and understanding to these men. That’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t mean that their advice is always right. It’s demonstrably not so. They don’t even always agree with each other, even if they do put on a united front in official policies & statements. We are told to seek our own personal revelation (even if this is disingenuous advice). If all you’re going to say in a discussion is that “The brethren said X, so X is obviously right,” that’s what’s called the Authority Fallacy. Again, I couldn’t care less if this is how you choose to make decisions in your life, but it doesn’t make you a very valuable commenter or discussion partner. It makes your contributions pretty pointless and thoughtless. You’re not presenting your own arguments; just your understanding of someone else’s ideas that you probably don’t perfectly understand and can’t defend well because their authority is the only defense you need.

“It appears most who comment and post at W&T oppose church leaders at some level on SSA, as well on many other issues.” The word ‘oppose’ is needlessly combative. You see only two sides. There are 15 apostles. They often disagree. We all have opinions on these matters. We all seek to understand what is right. Discussing those ideas, without lazily referencing the opinions of a person in authority, is the purpose of these comments. If all you are here to do is to restate what you think the “official” answer is without being able to give a merit-based argument, then I suggest you find another venue.

Also, the topic of this post is LDS women experiencing a dating crisis because they can’t be sealed to another husband. This is a serious problem for many LDS women in the dating scene. It’s a terrible byproduct of a policy that well-meaning leaders crafted in all likelihood without an awareness of this side effect. This is not a discussion about 1) how anyone who doesn’t like any policy is faithless, unlike you, 2) gay marriage or being gay, 3) church leaders being infallible guides.

I’m sorry that my comments some how offend you. However, I’m not interested in having a back and forth with you. You are entitled to your opinion. You are welcome to comment as you see best. I learn from your comments. Please allow me the courtesy of commenting as I see fit.. If you don’t like the way I comment, may I politely suggest that you don’t read them. I’ve lived successfully since the 1940’s. Raised a large family and dealt with the ups and downs that life brings to nearly all human kind. I’ve watched the world change since the end of WWII. The values that established America as the leader of the free world are now under assault by each succeeding generation since the end WWII. The Book of Mormon, a gift of God to America and the entire world, teaches what is at our door. It isn’t going to be pretty. I would cite some scriptures but I think its best not to. I wish you the best, but I am not interested in your evaluation of my comments, style, character, and etc. I will continue to read your post and comments as I have done in the past and seek understanding. If you can’t do the same then I think something is missing.

Jared, I’m a widow. You will have no success mansplaining my life to me regardless of your faith that you will.

The direction that women would have to choose a husband in the eternities after multiple sealings was removed from the latest CHI. What men like Jared don’t realize is that they are just as at risk as women are if the wife outlives them. She and she alone determines whether his sealing will remain if another man steps up. No man’s sealing is safe under the current system.

I can testify that many mainstream LDS women struggle with these sealing policies. It is most definitely not a matter of faithlessness. SquareTwo, which states its audience as centrist LDS, published an article explaining the context behind the relatively recent change in policy in allowing deceased women to be sealed to all known husbands. It also held a poll of its readership in reaction to that article. Anyone who might not understand why even faithful, orthodox members might struggle with this policy would likely benefit from looking at this: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleCasslerSealingPractices.html

Jared, when evaluating the church policy on a topic and its evolution, I find it helpful to regularly revisit Jacob 5:65-66 and 73-74, lest I become too fixed in any particular view that “what is” is “what ultimately should be”.

Progress remains to be made. In many, many areas, and the topic of the OP is certainly one of them.

Eternity can mean “forever” but it can also mean “outside of time”. I think the later is more relevant to a religious context. There is no time in heaven, everything is an eternal now to God. In other words, everything is totally different in heaven than on earth; hopefully this realization can liberate people from stressing over these issues. It’s best to live in today, without taking thought for tomorrow. “Sufficient is the day to the evil thereof”.

Phil, I appreciate the idea that we really don’t really comprehend heaven. However, these issues negatively impact real people’s lives today. I believe that was the point of the original post (i.e. LDS widows have an incredibly difficult time dating/finding an LDS spouse due to discrepancies in sealing practices for all men, deceased women, and living women.)

Another tragic set of circumstances for women to struggle with. Or maybe not. Why would I want any man who didn’t want me enough to put aside his misgivings about eternity and settle for time with me?
I know life is really not that simple – but it can be if we decide it will be day by day. A decent man in my bed trumps any kind of imaginary future. It didn’t in the past, but it does now I know what loneliness means.

The entire business of sealing is just a hot mess. I am a single father who was never sealed due to ex-partner not being active in the Church.

I was told that I couldn’t even be sealed to my son unless I was married in the temple. So basically, if I don’t find a single/divorced LDS woman who had her sealing cancelled, My family is basically dead in the water until I pass on from this life. I’m sure my child will be thrilled to learn all about eternal families when he hits primary and I’m still a single dad.